Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 381 F. App'x 339 - Simmons v. Epps

381 F. App'x 339 - Simmons v. Epps’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
August 2011
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Williams v. Taylor · Chambers v. Mississippi

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “I guess it’s a real mess, isn’t it? It wasn’t supposed to go like that .... Things got pressing in. I was in a bind three or four different ways. To my way of thinking, I didn’t have much of a choice. I mean, I’d already taken his money. There’s no excuses. It’s hard sitting here doing this, knowing under what conditions you’ll probably be watching it. I’m so dreadfully sorry. I didn’t think about it until after it was done. And then it couldn’t be undone. There was nothing in the world I could do to make it undone. And I would have. Oh, God, I would have. You never realize how close you are to the edge until you actually step over it. I don’t know how it happened, I really don’t. And after it had happened, I would have gave anything to take it back, even my life.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.